THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
767.44 Indictment; forms for particular offenses; bill of particulars.
Sec. 44.
The following forms may be used in the cases in which they are applicable but any other forms authorized by this or any other law of this state may also be used:
Adultery—A.B., a married man, committed adultery with C.D.; or A.B. committed adultery with C.D., a married woman.
Affray—A.B. and C.D. made an affray.
Assault—A.B. assaulted C.D.
Assault and Battery—A.B. committed an assault and battery on C.D.
Assault with intent—A.B. assaulted C.D. with intent to murder, or kill, or rob, or maim, or rape (as the case may be).
Arson—A.B. committed arson by burning the dwelling house of C.D.
Attempt—A.B. attempted to steal from C.D.; A.B. attempted to commit larceny of the goods of C.D.; A.B. attempted to commit burglary of a building belonging to C.D. (as the case may be).
Burglary—A.B. committed burglary of the house of C.D. A.B. broke and entered the dwelling house of C.D. in the night time with intent to commit larceny, or murder, or robbery therein (as the case may be).
Conspiracy—A.B. and C.D. conspired together to murder E.F. or to steal the property of E.F. or to rob E.F. (as the case may be).
Forgery—A.B. forged a certain instrument purporting to be a promissory note (or describe instrument or give its tenor or substance).
Larceny—Embezzlement and false pretenses. A.B. stole from C.D. 1 horse of the value of more than 100 dollars.
Murder—A.B. murdered C.D.
Manslaughter—A.B. killed C.D.
Perjury—A.B. appeared as a witness in a case between C.D. and E.F. being heard before the (set forth the tribunal) and committed perjury by testifying as follows: (set forth the testimony).
Rape—A.B. raped or ravished C.D.
Rape (statutory)—A.B. raped or ravished C.D., she C.D. being then under the age of (statutory age) years.
Robbery Armed—A.B. robbed C.D., A.B. being armed.
Robbery—A.B. robbed C.D., A.B. not being armed.
Provided, That the prosecuting attorney, if seasonably requested by the respondent, shall furnish a bill of particulars setting up specifically the nature of the offense charged.
History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17258 ;-- CL 1948, 767.44
FormerLaw Notes:
See section 2 of Act 77 of 1855, being CL 1857, § 6048; CL 1871, § 7917; How., § 9528; CL 1897, § 11913; and CL 1915, § 15740.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
27
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case:
People v. Johnson, 398 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 1986).
People v. Johnson, 398 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 1986).
· cites it 22× “MCL 767.44; MSA 28.984 [8] simply validates simplified short-form informations for the charging of various crimes.”
People v. Missouri, 299 N.W.2d 346 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 3× “Consequently, defendants argue, the prosecution was able to present any testimony it desired on the conspiracy counts, thus maintaining an "evolving” theory of the case. In considering the merits of this claim, it is first necessary to determine whether defendants were charged…”
People v. White, 308 N.W.2d 128 (Mich. 1981).
· cites it 2× “If the defendant was uncertain as to the exact statements alleged to be false, his remedy was to have requested a bill of particulars under MCL 767.44; MSA 28.984. The information and addendum comply with the materiality requirements of People v Cash.”
People v. Jones, 254 N.W.2d 863 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “Defendant next claims that the denial of his motion to compel the prosecutor to furnish a bill of particulars constituted reversible error because defendant was entitled to a bill of particulars as a matter of right under MCLA 767.44; MSA 28.984. 2 Defendant’s contention that…”
People v. Bauder, 712 N.W.2d 506 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
“316(1)(a), MCL 767.44; and with first-degree *177 criminal sexual conduct (CSC I), MCL 750.”
People v. Fernandez, 398 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. 1986).
· cites it 2× “MCL 767.44; MSA 28.984 simply validates simplified short-form informations for the charging of various crimes.”
People v. Iaconnelli, 317 N.W.2d 540 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 3× “VI Defendants claim that the trial court erred by denying their request for a bill of particulars and that reversal is required on that ground.”
People v. Coddington, 470 N.W.2d 478 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
“MCL 767.44; MSA 28.984 simply validates simplified short-form informations for the charging of various crimes.”
People v. McKinney, 237 N.W.2d 215 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 2× “1011 provides: "In all indictments for murder and manslaughter it shall not be necessary to set forth the manner in which nor the means by which the death of the deceased was caused; but it shall be sufficient in any indictment for murder to charge that the defendant did murder…”
People v. Traughber, 439 N.W.2d 231 (Mich. 1989).
· cites it 2× “[8] MCL 767.44; MSA 28.984 permits an information to be filed in short form.”
People v. Rosen, 358 N.W.2d 584 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
“Defendant argues that the information should have specified which transaction was the basis for the charge against defendant or, in the alternative, that defendant was entitled to a bill of partic *761 ulars stating on which transaction the prosecutor was proceeding.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.